Never heard of that one before. I just know history like the Irish potato famine, the Chestnut tree in the US, and others. This has also come up in biowarfare scenarios where a plant disease could be used to attack food production in the US. It would spread more easily amongst crops that have little genetic variation.

Never heard of that one before. I just know history like the Irish potato famine, the Chestnut tree in the US, and others. This has also come up in biowarfare scenarios where a plant disease could be used to attack food production in the US. It would spread more easily amongst crops that have little genetic variation.

You should watch it and how a corporation can go from being an instrument of good to an instrument of evil and manipulates politics and politicians and science and scientist to reach a goal of world domination through the control of agriculture and food and the misuse of science and Genetically Modified plants. This all results in a loss of genetic diversity of food sources and genetic contamination of wild plant species.

You don't understand the link between lung size / oxygen / insect size
any more than our make believe friend, or random facetious comment?

Yes I do understand. I took biology in high school and college. You also have to consider oxygen density and temperature stability. In other words, insects remain small in size as long as oxygen levels remain below a certain percentage of the total atmosphere and the temperature is below a terminal point. When oxygen levels increase and temperature increases and remains stable for a long time, insects can grow much larger than they can now at present oxygen and temperature levels. It's also why the dinosaurs grew so big along with large food sources and a long life span and indeterminate cellular growth limit.

You should watch it and how a corporation can go from being an instrument of good to an instrument of evil and manipulates politics and politicians and science and scientist to reach a goal of world domination through the control of agriculture and food and the misuse of science and Genetically Modified plants. This all results in a loss of genetic diversity of food sources and genetic contamination of wild plant species.

I'll look into it. A lot of that I already know about though. The lack of genetic diversity in the plants and contamination of other species with enough DNA to make them vulnerable to the right germ is something people aren't being enough attention to.

Yes I do understand. I took biology in high school and college. You also have to consider oxygen density and temperature stability. In other words, insects remain small in size as long as oxygen levels remain below a certain percentage of the total atmosphere and the temperature is below a terminal point. When oxygen levels increase and temperature increases and remains stable for a long time, insects can grow much larger than they can now at present oxygen and temperature levels. It's also why the dinosaurs grew so big along with large food sources and a long life span and indeterminate cellular growth limit.

It's a shame that you were not here to teach our imaginary friend then.

I think we are gettin way ahead of ourselves here. The much trumpeted Human Genome Project isnt the end all it was heralded to be and if anythin mappin the genes has only raised more questions and puzzles than it has answered. For instance there isnt just one gene that controls eye colour or height or gayness (if you believe that anything could be as simple) but an array of genes workin together produce all these things.

Besides which if we were to truly understand how our body works and all that guff we have to map the proteome, that is the way proteins are made and work. A exponentially harder tasks than mappin genes. If the HGP is the contents manual for the body then the human proteome is the manual on how to make it go.

We arent quite as advanced in this technology as some like to think.

Whether or not we should try is another issue but if we really wanted to make our species stronger and fitter we should have a programme of selective breedin and by that i mean not everyone havin the right to reproduce but i am goin into territory here that is highly emotive and very controversial.

I think there are many complexities to life and existence, that should be considered. DNA and understanding the Human Genome are very complex ideas. As far as life goes, it is more beneficial for a species to have a diversity of traits available in the population.

Following the logical progression of ideas in science, I am going to have to say that limiting diversity in a species genetics and DNA make up is not a good idea.

That is not to say that people should not be concerned about there growth and development. The concept of evolution is advanced, but within the grasp of most people. If it is realized that a person can impact their development over a lifetime, then it would be possible to understand this effect over the course of multiple generations.

I think in terms of diseases that can be understood through genetics there may be valuable potential to Artificially Direct Human Evolution. This information may be used to prevent diseases.

As far as evolution of a species, I think that the environment that the species exists in is very critical and the behaviors and activities exhibited.

In the case of the human species: It would probably be beneficial to have better health care and better education. There are probably more ideas that should be considered. Better Health and Education should let people be able to grow / learn .... evolve in a better direction.

Humans are on the verge of taking over their evolutionary development artificially. So far, human attempts at this have amounted to little more than accidental happenstance and blind tinkering, but that may be soon to change. Will we begin to direct our own evolution by our own design and leave the days of natural selection in the dust? Will homosapiens finally produce homosuperiors? Is this ethically and technically wise?

Humans are on the verge of taking over their evolutionary development artificially. So far, human attempts at this have amounted to little more than accidental happenstance and blind tinkering, but that may be soon to change. Will we begin to direct our own evolution by our own design and leave the days of natural selection in the dust? Will homosapiens finally produce homosuperiors? Is this ethically and technically wise?

What is ethical and wise is to become aware of the Whole of Life within the Cosmos and on earth our own natural role within it as its guardians and protectors and exporters and to advance it as well as our own selves as it is in the only fully-conscious way of directed biological and cosmic co-evolution.